DOCSLIB.ORG

Testimony of Ms. Dana Schulze Acting Director, Office of Aviation Safety

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Testimony of Ms. Dana Schulze Acting Director, Office of Aviation Safety Testimony of Ms. Dana Schulze Acting Director, Office of Aviation Safety National Transportation Safety Board Before the Subcommittee on Aviation Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure United States House of Representatives — On — Status of Aviation Safety — Washington, DC • July 17, 2019 An Independent Federal Agency Good morning, Chairman Larsen, Ranking Member Graves, and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for inviting the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) to testify before you today. I am the Acting Director of the Office of Aviation Safety within the NTSB. The NTSB is an independent federal agency charged by Congress with investigating every civil aviation accident in the United States and significant accidents in other modes of transportation – highway, rail, marine, and pipeline. We determine the probable cause of the accidents we investigate, and we issue safety recommendations aimed at preventing future accidents. In addition, we conduct special transportation safety studies and special investigations and coordinate the resources of the federal government and other organizations to assist victims and their family members who have been impacted by major transportation disasters. The NTSB is not a regulatory agency – we do not promulgate operating standards nor do we certificate organizations and individuals. The goal of our work is to foster safety improvements, through formal and informal safety recommendations, for the traveling public. We investigate all civil domestic air carrier, commuter, and air taxi accidents; general aviation accidents; and certain public-use aircraft accidents, amounting to approximately 1,400 investigations of accidents and incidents annually. We also participate in investigations of airline accidents and incidents in foreign countries that involve US carriers, US-manufactured or - designed equipment, or US-registered aircraft. I would like to thank the committee for being a continued partner in safety. Last year, you addressed multiple NTSB safety recommendations in the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018. Based on our investigations, the NTSB recommended applying second-class medical requirements to commercial balloon operators, requiring all rotorcraft to meet certain minimum crashworthiness requirements to protect fuel systems, and sufficiently marking and maintaining in a database all meteorological evaluation towers.1 When Congress passed the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 you required the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to close these safety gaps.2 This testimony will address the state of aviation safety from the NTSB’s perspective and is based on our investigations. It will include a description of safety issues we have identified and recommendations we have made, and will conclude with a description of the work we are doing with emerging transportation technologies in aviation. For the last decade, the US aviation system has experienced a record level of safety, and the number of US-registered civil aviation accidents has declined overall.3 Deaths associated with US civil aviation accidents decreased from 539 in 2009 to preliminarily 401 in 2018. Nearly 92 percent of aviation fatalities in 2018 occurred in general aviation and non-commercial accidents, with the remainder primarily in Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 135 operations, which include charters, air taxis, and air medical services flights. Until 2018, there had been no passenger fatalities as a result of accidents involving US air carriers operating under the provisions 1 National Transportation Safety Board, Safety Recommendations A-17-034, A-15-012, A-13-016, and A-13-017. 2 Public Law 115-254. 3 National Transportation Safety Board, 2017 preliminary aviation statistics. Accident data for calendar year 2018 are still being validated and have not yet been released. 1 of 14 CFR Part 121 since the crash of Colgan Air flight 3407 in 2009.4 This unprecedented period of safety came to an end on April 17, 2018, when the Southwest Airlines Flight 1380 accident involving an uncontained engine failure resulted in a first passenger.5 Over the last several decades, significant advances in technology, important legislative and regulatory changes, and more comprehensive crew training have contributed to the current level of aviation safety. However, we continue to see accidents and incidents that remind us of the need to be ever vigilant. On February 4, 2019, we announced our Most Wanted List of Transportation Safety Improvements for 2019–2020.6 This list identifies 10 focus areas for transportation safety improvements based on issues identified through our investigations. Many of the issues on the Most Wanted List address multimodal challenges for improving safety, including many that have been identified in some of our aviation accident investigations, such as alcohol and other drug impairment, distraction, occupant protection, fatigue, medical fitness, and safe shipment of hazardous materials. Most Wanted List – Improve the Safety of Part 135 Flight Operations On the Most Wanted List, one issue area is specific to aviation: improving the safety of Part 135 flight operations. Regardless of the purpose of the flight or the type of aircraft, all passenger-carrying flights should be safe. However, currently, air medical service, air taxi, charter, and on-demand operators are not required to meet some of the same safety requirements that have proven effective at enhancing the safety of commercial airline operations. On March 12, 2019, the NTSB issued three new safety recommendations and reiterated six previous safety recommendations to the FAA as a result of the investigation of an accident that occurred on May 15, 2017, in Teterboro, New Jersey.7 In this accident, a Learjet 35A, operated by a Part 135 operator, Trans-Pacific Air Charter, departed controlled flight while on a circling approach to Teterboro Airport and impacted a commercial building and parking lot. The pilot-in-command and the second-in-command died; there were no passengers on the aircraft and no one on the ground was injured. While the aircraft was operating as a Part 91 positioning flight at the time of the accident, the accident raised concerns about the safety of Part 135 operations and the need for effective flight data monitoring (FDM) programs, safety management systems (SMS), procedures to identify pilots who do not comply with standard operating procedures, programs to address pilots with performance deficiencies, and the need for enhanced guidance for crew resource management training and leadership training for upgrading captains. 4 National Transportation Safety Board, Loss of Control on Approach, Colgan Air, Inc., Operating as Continental Connection Flight 3407, Bombardier DHC 8 400, N200WQ, Rpt. No. AAR-10/01 (Washington, DC: NTSB, 2012). In 2013, there were two fatal accidents involving nonscheduled cargo flights operating under Part 121—National Air Cargo crash after takeoff at Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan, and United Parcel Service flight 1354 crash during approach in Birmingham, Alabama. 5 The Southwest Airlines flight 1380 investigation is ongoing. An investigative hearing was conducted on November 14, 2018. 6 National Transportation Safety Board, 2019–2020 Most Wanted List. 7 National Transportation Safety Board, Departure From Controlled Flight, Trans-Pacific Air Charter, LLC, Learjet 35A, N452DA, Teterboro, New Jersey (Abstract), Rpt. No. AAR-19/02 (Washington, DC: NTSB, 2019). 2 The safety issues identified in the Teterboro accident were not new; the NTSB had previously identified these issues and made recommendations to address FDM equipment and programs and SMS as a result of the investigation of the November 10, 2015, crash of Execuflight flight 1526 in Akron, Ohio.8 The recommendations were reiterated following the October 26, 2016, crash of Ravn Connect flight 3153 in Togiak, Alaska, and again following the Teterboro accident.9 Since completing the investigation in Teterboro, New Jersey and issuing safety recommendations, the NTSB has initiated another 13 investigations into Part 135 accidents and incidents, of which five were fatal crashes – including the May 13 midair collision between two aircraft on sightseeing flights in Ketchikan, Alaska.10 Further, there are cases of paying passengers aboard aircraft where the operation is exempt from Part 135, such as the June 21 crash of an Oahu Parachute Center skydiving flight in Mokuleia, Hawaii, where all 10 passengers and one crewmember were fatally injured, and the March 11, 2018, crash of a FlyNYON sightseeing flight in New York City where five passengers were fatally injured. Both flights were operating under Part 91. A list of the safety recommendations we have made regarding Part 135 operations is appended to this testimony. Implementation of these and other recommendations could prevent or mitigate many of the Part 135 crashes that the NTSB investigates, and that is why “Improve the Safety of Part 135 Aircraft Operations” is included on the Most Wanted List. Most Wanted List – Reduce Fatigue-Related Accidents Fatigue is a pervasive problem in transportation that degrades a person’s ability to stay awake, alert, and attentive to the demands of safely controlling a vehicle, vessel, aircraft, or train. By including “Reduce Fatigue-Related Accidents” on our Most Wanted List, we are calling for a comprehensive approach to combatting fatigue in transportation, focusing on research, education, and training; technology; sleep disorder treatment; hours-of-service
Load more

Recommended publications
  • AVIATION Disaster Litigation and Investigations
    AVIATION Disaster Litigation and Investigations Attorney Advertising Our attorneys litigate diverse and complex cases for plane crash victims and their families throughout the world and injured crash survivors, as well as people who have suffered as a result of aviation security, safety, or passenger rights violations. At Motley Rice, our goal is not only to seek justice and compensation for our clients, but we also seek accountability from defendants and improvements in aviation safety and security standards. We give our clients a voice when they feel the most vulnerable. MARY F. SCHIAVO Licensed in DC, FL, MD, MO, SC JAMES R. BRAUCHLE Licensed in SC Our Approach At Motley Rice, our goal is not only to seek improvements in aviation safety and security standards through our civil justice system but also to give our clients a voice at a time in their lives when they feel the most vulnerable and to win for them the compensation they are owed and the changes they deserve. At Motley Rice, we work to help aviation disaster COMPASSION, GUIDANCE AND SUPPORT survivors and victims’ families, as well as victims We understand the pain, confusion and questions that of passenger rights violations and other safety and often follow tragic events and know that many clients security violations. feel overwhelmed by the emotional circumstances Our aviation attorneys have experience handling a which brought them to us. While coping with the loss wide variety of aviation cases. We recognize that of a loved one or the devastation of a permanent injury, survivors and family members of victims have many survivors and family members face numerous other concerns following an aviation disaster and may face obstacles such as medical expenses, loss of income considerations of complex legal rights and actions.
    [Show full text]
  • Guide to Methods & Tools for Airline Flight Safety Analysis, Issue 2
    PAGE LEFT BLANK Guide to METHODS & TOOLS FOR AIRLINE FLIGHT SAFETY ANALYSIS Prepared by: GAIN Working Group B, Analytical Methods and Tools Second Edition – June 2003 THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK GAIN Guide to Methods & Tools for Airline Flight Safety Analysis Table of Contents Page Foreword...................................................................................................................................v Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................vi 1.0 Introduction.......................................................................................................................1 1.1 Purpose of Guide .........................................................................................................1 1.2 GAIN Overview ..........................................................................................................1 1.3 Working Group B: Analytical Methods and Tools .....................................................1 1.4 Scope ...........................................................................................................................2 1.5 Definitions ...................................................................................................................2 1.6 Review of Methods and Tools.....................................................................................2 1.7 Organization of this Guide ..........................................................................................3 1.8 Changes
    [Show full text]
  • The Use of Voluntary Safety Reporting Programs by the Federal Aviation Administration
    COLLABORATING WITH INDUSTRY TO ENSURE REGULATORY OVERSIGHT: THE USE OF VOLUNTARY SAFETY REPORTING PROGRAMS BY THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION A dissertation submitted to Kent State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Russell W. Mills May 2011 Dissertation written by Russell W. Mills B.A., Westminster College, 2005 M.P.A, University of Vermont, 2007 Ph.D, Kent State University, 2011 Approved by _____________________ , Mark K. Cassell, Co-Chair, Doctoral Dissertation Committee _____________________, Renée J. Johnson, Co-Chair, Doctoral Dissertation Committee _____________________, Daniel Hawes, Committee Member _____________________, Issac Richmond Nettey, Outside Reader _____________________, Paul Farrell, Graduate Faculty Member Accepted by _____________________, Steven Hook, Chair, Department of Political Science _____________________, Timothy Moerland, Dean, College of Arts and Sciences ii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... X LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ XI ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................. XII CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW .................................... 1 1.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Remote ID NPRM Maps out UAS Airspace Integration Plans by Charles Alcock
    PUBLICATIONS Vol.49 | No.2 $9.00 FEBRUARY 2020 | ainonline.com « Joby Aviation’s S4 eVTOL aircraft took a leap forward in the race to launch commercial service with a January 15 announcement of $590 million in new investment from a group led by Japanese car maker Toyota. Joby says it will have the piloted S4 flying as part of the Uber Air air taxi network in early adopter cities before the end of 2023, but it will surely take far longer to get clearance for autonomous eVTOL operations. (Full story on page 8) People HAI’s new president takes the reins page 14 Safety 2019 was a bad year for Part 91 page 12 Part 135 FAA has stern words for BlackBird page 22 Remote ID NPRM maps out UAS airspace integration plans by Charles Alcock Stakeholders have until March 2 to com- in planned urban air mobility applications. Read Our SPECIAL REPORT ment on proposed rules intended to provide The final rule resulting from NPRM FAA- a framework for integrating unmanned air- 2019-100 is expected to require remote craft systems (UAS) into the U.S. National identification for the majority of UAS, with Airspace System. On New Year’s Eve, the exceptions to be made for some amateur- EFB Hardware Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) pub- built UAS, aircraft operated by the U.S. gov- When it comes to electronic flight lished its long-awaited notice of proposed ernment, and UAS weighing less than 0.55 bags, (EFBs), most attention focuses on rulemaking (NPRM) for remote identifica- pounds.
    [Show full text]
  • Substandard Flight Crew Performance I
    Running Head; Substandard Flight Crew Performance i Substandard Flight Crew Performance: Recurrent Human Factors in Flight Crew Initiated Aircraft Incidents and Accidents By Raymond Newell, BSc (Hons) MSc Doctoral Thesis Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of Doctor of Philosophy of Loughborough University June 2017 Substandard Flight Crew Performance iii ABSTRACT The objective of this research has been to understand more about aviation accidents in which the actions of the flight crew members (hereafter FCMs) were the main cause. A new con- struct has been developed known as substandard flight crew performance (hereafter SFP) to provide framework and context for this research. To support this construct, the most recurrent examples of SFP were identified from analysis of decades of investigations and reports. Based upon the frequency of occurrence, the potential contribution to aviation safety, and the feasibility of conducting meaningful research, three diverse but interconnected factors have been identified. The first of these related to the recurrent influence of verbal phenomena in aviation accidents, in particular, distracting conversations and unclear communications. The literature indicated that even those tasked with investigating accidents where these phenome- na had been present understood very little about the underlying reasons for their occurrence. Furthermore, although these phenomena have been studied within more general research populations, as far as is known no previous research has examined their function in the avia- tion context. A questionnaire and unstructured interviews with FCMs resulted in two taxon- omies, both of which have been supported by ethnographic1 observations. The next strand of this research critically examined some of the reasons why some flight crews become unsure of their position or orientation whilst navigating both in flight and on the ground, a phenome- non that has been associated with some of the most serious instances of SFP.
    [Show full text]
  • Rosenker FAA Safety Testimony
    Testimony of the Honorable Mark V. Rosenker Acting Chairman National Transportation Safety Board Before the Subcommittee on Aviation Operations, Safety and Security Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation United States Senate Aviation Safety: FAA’s Role in the Oversight of Commercial Air Carriers June 10, 2009 Good afternoon. With your concurrence, Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin my testimony with a short summary of the National Transportation Safety Board’s (NTSB) actions to date regarding the investigation of the accident involving Colgan Air flight 3407. I want to emphasize that this is still an ongoing investigation and that there is significant work left for our investigative staff. My testimony today will therefore out of necessity be limited to those facts that we have identified to date, and I will steer clear of any analysis of what we have found so far and avoid any ultimate conclusions that might be drawn from that information. On February 12, 2009, about 10:17 p.m. eastern standard time, Colgan Air flight 3407, a Bombardier Dash 8-Q400, crashed during an instrument approach to runway 23 at Buffalo- Niagara International Airport, Buffalo, New York. The crash site was in Clarence Center, New York, about 5 nautical miles northeast of the airport, and was mostly confined to a single residential house. The flight was operating as a Part 121 scheduled passenger flight from Liberty International Airport, Newark, New Jersey. The four crew members and 45 passengers were killed, and the aircraft was destroyed by impact forces and post crash fire. One person in the house was also killed and two individuals escaped with minor injuries.
    [Show full text]
  • FLYHT 2019 July Investor Presentation
    July 2019 FLYHT Aerospace Solutions Ltd. TSX.V: FLY OTCQX: FLYLF 1 TSX.V: FLY OTCQX: FLYLF Disclaimer www.flyht.com Forward Looking Statements This discussion includes certain statements that may be deemed “forward-looking statements” that are subject to risks and uncertainty. All statements, other than statements of historical facts included in this discussion, including, without limitation, those regarding the Company’s financial position, business strategy, projected costs, future plans, projected revenues, objectives of management for future operations, the Company’s ability to meet any repayment obligations, the use of non-GAAP financial measures, trends in the airline industry, the global financial outlook, expanding markets, research and development of next generation products and any government assistance in financing such developments, foreign exchange rate outlooks, new revenue streams and sales projections, cost increases as related to marketing, research and development (including AFIRS 228), administration expenses, and litigation matters, may be or include forward-looking statements. Although the Company believes the expectations expressed in such forward-looking statements are based on a number of reasonable assumptions regarding the Canadian, U.S., and global economic environments, local and foreign government policies/regulations and actions and assumptions made based upon discussions to date with the Company’s customers and advisers, such statements are not guarantees of future performance and actual results or developments may differ materially from those in the forward- looking statements. Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements include production rates, timing for product deliveries and installations, Canadian, U.S., and foreign government activities, volatility of the aviation market for the Company’s products and services, factors that result in significant and prolonged disruption of air travel worldwide, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • The Deadline for Airlines to Comply with the GADSS Mandate Is 1St of January 2021
    23 I AIRLINE & AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS The deadline for airlines to comply with the GADSS mandate is 1st of January 2021. The mandate requires aircraft operators to automate aircraft tracking capabilities. The hardware options available for operators are reviewed here. The avionic options to comply with GADSS he impetus for the International aircraft designs submitted after the updated to include new documents and Civil Aviation Organization’s introduction of the GADSS mandate must amendments pertaining to how data is (ICAO’s) Global Aeronautical be capable of timely FDR data recovery stored in distributed server networks, TDistress and Safety Systems in addition to having the standard flight such as a data-cloud and accessed and (GADSS) standards came from two high- recorders. used in an accident investigation. profile aircraft accidents. These were the The mandatory GADSS requirements Current Annex 13 legislation is based loss of Air France (AF) 447 in 2009 and will be effective from 1 January 2021. around flight data information, including the disappearance of Malaysian Airways its location during the post-flight location MH370 in 2014. and recovery (PFLR) phase. Despite flying in surveyed airspace at ICAO GADSS is defined as a performance- the time it went missing, AF447 was only A special multidisciplinary meeting on based approach, meaning the system is found about two years later. global flight tracking (MMGFT) was graded on functionality rather than In 2014 MH370 was lost in the convened in May 2014 to propose mandating a specific solution. Indian Ocean, which is very deep in recommendations for future actions. One parts. Usual methods of accurately of the main decisions taken was the need locating the wreckage have so far been for operators to pursue aircraft flight- Background unsuccessful.
    [Show full text]
  • Instrument and Equipment
    PCAR PART 7 Republic of the Philippines CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS (CAR) PART 7 INSTRUMENT AND EQUIPMENT July 2021 Edition i U N C O N T R O L L E D C O P Y W H E N D O W N L O A D E D PCAR PART 7 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK PAGE July 2021 Edition ii U N C O N T R O L L E D C O P Y W H E N D O W N L O A D E D PCAR PART 7 July 2021 Edition iii U N C O N T R O L L E D C O P Y W H E N D O W N L O A D E D PCAR PART 7 July 2021 Edition iv U N C O N T R O L L E D C O P Y W H E N D O W N L O A D E D PCAR PART 7 July 2021 Edition v U N C O N T R O L L E D C O P Y W H E N D O W N L O A D E D PCAR PART 7 RECORD OF AMENDMENTS Amendment No. Date Subject Incorporated By Original Issue 23 June 2008 Ruben F. Ciron First Amendment 21 March 2011 1. 7.2.9 Navigation Equipment Ramon S. Gutierrez Second Amendment 01 August 2013 Inserted vertical bars on the LT GEN William K previous amendments Hotchkiss III AFP (Ret) Third Amendment 31 October 2013 1.
    [Show full text]
  • An Analysis of Regional Airlines' Response to the Pilot Shortage And
    Bridgewater State University Virtual Commons - Bridgewater State University Honors Program Theses and Projects Undergraduate Honors Program 4-24-2018 An Analysis of Regional Airlines’ Response to the Pilot Shortage and How It Impacts Collegiate Pilots Jared Samost Follow this and additional works at: http://vc.bridgew.edu/honors_proj Part of the Management and Operations Commons Recommended Citation Samost, Jared. (2018). An Analysis of Regional Airlines’ Response to the Pilot Shortage and How It Impacts Collegiate Pilots. In BSU Honors Program Theses and Projects. Item 266. Available at: http://vc.bridgew.edu/honors_proj/266 Copyright © 2018 Jared Samost This item is available as part of Virtual Commons, the open-access institutional repository of Bridgewater State University, Bridgewater, Massachusetts. Running head: REGIONAL AIRLINES’ RESPONSE TO THE PILOT SHORTAGE 1 An Analysis of Regional Airlines’ Response to the Pilot Shortage and How It Impacts Collegiate Pilots Jared Samost Submitted in Partial Completion of the Requirements for Commonwealth Honors in Aviation Science Bridgewater State University April 24, 2018 Prof. Michael Welch, Thesis Advisor Prof. Michael Farley, Committee Member Prof. Veronica Cote, Committee Member REGIONAL AIRLINES’ RESPONSE TO THE PILOT SHORTAGE 2 Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................... 3 Introduction ........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Aviation Safety Oversight and Failed Leadership in the FAA
    Table of Contents I. Executive Summary……………………………………………………….…….....…….2 II. Overview……………….......……………………………………………………………..3 III. Table of Acronyms……………………………………………………….……....….…...9 IV. Findings……..…………………………………………………………………………...11 V. Introduction………………………………………………………………………...…...14 A. The Federal Aviation Administration …………….…….……………….……...…….15 B. History of Safety Concerns in the FAA……….……………………..……..……...…16 C. Whistleblowers……………………………………………………………………..…20 D. FAA Aviation Safety and Whistleblower Investigation Office………………………22 VI. Committee Investigation…………………………………………….............................24 A. Correspondence with the FAA………………………………………………..….......24 B. Concerns Surrounding the FAA’s Responses.……...…………………………..…….28 C. Other Investigations………………………………………………………………..…32 VII. Whistleblower Disclosures………………………………..……………………………38 A. Boeing and 737 Max………………………………………………………………….38 B. Abuse of the FAA’s Aviation Safety Action Program (ASAP)……………………... 47 C. Atlas Airlines………………………………………………………………………….59 D. Allegations of Misconduct at the Honolulu Flight Standards District Office………...66 E. Improper Training and Certification………………………………………………….73 F. Ineffective Safety Oversight of Southwest Airlines…………………………………..82 VIII. Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………....99 IX. Recommendations…………………………………………………..……….………...101 1 I. Executive Summary In April of 2019, weeks after the second of two tragic crashes of Boeing 737 MAX aircraft, U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation staff began receiving information
    [Show full text]
  • Aircraft Accident Report: American Airlines, Inc., Mcdonnell Douglas
    Explosive decompression, American Airlines, Inc., McDonnell Douglas DC-10-10, N103AA, Near Windsor, Ontario, Canada, June 12, 1972 Micro-summary: On climb, this McDonnell Douglas DC-10-10 experienced an opening of a cargo door, explosive decompression, and a main cabin floor collapse, disrupting the flight control system. Event Date: 1972-06-12 at 1925 EST Investigative Body: National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), USA Investigative Body's Web Site: http://www.ntsb.gov/ Cautions: 1. Accident reports can be and sometimes are revised. Be sure to consult the investigative agency for the latest version before basing anything significant on content (e.g., thesis, research, etc). 2. Readers are advised that each report is a glimpse of events at specific points in time. While broad themes permeate the causal events leading up to crashes, and we can learn from those, the specific regulatory and technological environments can and do change. Your company's flight operations manual is the final authority as to the safe operation of your aircraft! 3. Reports may or may not represent reality. Many many non-scientific factors go into an investigation, including the magnitude of the event, the experience of the investigator, the political climate, relationship with the regulatory authority, technological and recovery capabilities, etc. It is recommended that the reader review all reports analytically. Even a "bad" report can be a very useful launching point for learning. 4. Contact us before reproducing or redistributing a report from this anthology. Individual countries have very differing views on copyright! We can advise you on the steps to follow.
    [Show full text]